CKNW Editorial
for November 28, 2001

I spoke about the inability of this country to change the way it governs itself and I want to talk a bit this morning why this is such an important point.

When we look at history we see clearly that the most stable governments are in places where change is possible. That doesn't mean that change is easy or that it often happens - just that it can happen.

Britain has an unwritten constitution whose flexibility has permitted many changes, often very subtle. The United States is the best example of a formal constitution that permits of change and in fact has been changed more than 30 times.

What is the feature most important to a living, breathing constitution?

The answer is very simple indeed. No component part of the body politic has the power of veto. That is critical. For if anyone has the power to veto they thereby have the power to keep what they have for all time notwithstanding changes in circumstances.

You will remember back to December 1995 when Jean Chretien brought into the House of Commons his famous resolution that Parliament would use the Canadian government veto over constitutional change on behalf of any of the four regions of Canada, Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario or the West that so requested. We were so offended in BC at not being a region of our own that we lost sight of the fact that vetoes are a bad thing, period.

When Chretien reluctantly agreed that BC was a region he may have restored our pride but no more.  

Historically this problem has beset Canada. Prior to the Patriation of the Constitution in 1982, politicians federal and political had wrestled with the question of how the constitution could be changed. It had always been felt that the British Parliament, who prior to 1982, still had this residual power, would only amend the constitution if all the provinces agreed. In the run-up exercise nothing vexed those dealing with the matter, which included

me, more than just how you could effect change. The sticking points were two - Quebec wanted a veto for herself as did the federal government. In the end we developed the so-called 7 & 50 rule that permitted many amendments, not all, to be made by 7 provinces with more than 50% of the population plus the federal government to make changes. This effectively blocked an Ontario and Quebec veto but it made the egregious error of permitting one to Ottawa - and that resulted in the 1995 resolution I mentioned a moment ago.

But, many ask, who cares? This is all just legalistic and arcane mumbo jumbo that doesn't put a meal on a plate or a dollar in anyone's pocket. The problem is that it does matter. It matters very much.

For things change. What is today an unassailably important fact of politics becomes unimportant in time and other factors take its place. And if the rules cannot be adjusted to reflect those changes trouble - serious trouble develops. And this is the insidious part. Because those changes creep up over time, and are often unnoticed, often avoided by politicians who don’t want to offend some voters, they invariably reach the crisis point before anyone deals with them. It took a civil war to get rid of slavery which had been sanctified by the Supreme Court of the United States and one might reasonably speculate that if the fathers of the republic had dealt with that 100 years earlier there might not have been that civil war.  

But let's move to more modern times. When Lebanon got her independence from France after World War II the population was divided almost 50-50 between Muslims and Christians. It was seen as wise and conciliatory that the constitution provide that the presidency alternate between these two religious groups. 35 years later the proportions had changed to 2/3 Muslim and 1/3 Christian yet the rule re alternating presidents remained and in consequence Lebanon went from being the peaceful jewel of the Eastern Mediterranean to a war torn hell hole.

In 1992 Canadians were asked to vote on a constitutional change which would have entrenched in the constitution the right of Quebec to have 25% of the House of Commons seats in perpetuity. This would have been unchangeable. I asked, as did many other Canadians, what that would mean when British Columbia, which was already underrepresented, became bigger than Quebec sometime this century. We were told, of course, not to worry our pretty little heads about such constitutional abstractions.

But British Columbians knew that far from being a constitutional abstraction, this was instead a constitutional time bomb and voted accordingly.  

Constitutions are of critical importance for they decide how power is to be exercised. In federal states like Canada, the US, Australia and Germany the constitution takes on special meaning because the countries recognize that in addition to straight representation by population, regions have a special place.

And this gets me to last Monday's editorial. We have this complex nation, regional, and thus a federation, that has a constitution that is utterly unchangeable. It is a country that is changing very rapidly yet it is stuck in a time warp forevermore. And make no mistake about it - no change will ever be permitted unless Ontario and Quebec, each of them, agrees.

And here, perhaps, is the worst part. Because no change is possible, no discussion of needed changes happens. What's the point of discussing that which can never happen. The political yeast of the nation is leavened by the fact that all debate is useless.

But, you might ask, isn't this all pretty theoretical?

Not at all. You can bet the ranch on this. Before the next half decade passes we will be right back to 1992. Jean Charest will be Premier of Quebec and he will have got there, in part, by promising that he will see to it that Quebec gets its own veto over all change, that it will be declared a "distinct society" and, yes, that it has 25% of the House of Commons for all time. And probably more.

By permitting vetoes of the constitution we have created constitutional constipation such that the country cannot change how it governs itself to meet the changes in the reality of how the country is made up. We are a Lebanon waiting to happen.

Under those circumstances, don't British Columbians have the right to ask whether or not the only way they can be governed fairly and democratically is take charge of all their own affairs?